Study: Yep, Obamacare probably cost Democrats the House

posted at 1:55 pm on March 9, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In case Republican candidates need confirmation that Obamacare was and is a huge vulnerability for the president and Democrats, a new study suggests that, of all the contentious votes taken in the president’s first two years in office, how a House Democrat voted on Obamacare was the most important predictor of whether he would retain his House seat. The Fix’s Aaron Blake relates:

The study ran 10,000 simulations of a scenario in which all vulnerable Democrats voted against the health care bill and found that the rejections would have saved Democrats an average of 25 seats, which would have made the House parties close to a tie. (Republicans won 63 seats overall, but the study suggests around 25 of them would have been salvaged.)

In 62 percent of the simulations, Democrats were able to keep the House.

The study uses district-level data to show that the vote created “ideological distance” between the Democratic members of Congress and the median voters in their districts, compared with similar districts where the Democratic incumbent voted against the bill.

“Democratic incumbents who supported health care reform were seen as more liberal on average by their constituents than those who did not,” the study says.

House Democratic whip Steny Hoyer also recently acknowledged that Obamacare was “clearly a liability” in the last election. By November, two more years will have passed and voters will likely have begun to think that, if they haven’t yet experienced any dire consequences of Obamacare, then they never will. But many of the bill’s most controversial provisions don’t take effect until 2014. As Blake writes, Obamacare is “a sleeping giant,” and, if Republicans don’t rouse and slay it now, repeal not only will be impossible — but, from 2014 onward, the giant will wake to ravage a nation lulled into a false sense of security by the passage of time.

Nonsense. Everyone knows Obamacare is popular and people really love it. Only a few right wing extremistswingnutz True Cons have any objection to it. We need to vote in the person who is best equipped to “manage” it! It’s here to stay, get used to it and learn to love it! //

No sh*t! Nancy carrying her big gavel like she was some triumphant punk was worth at least 3 of those electoral points! I wish she’d do it again! Go Nancy!! She’s our man! If she can’t lose more House seats no one can!!

The question is, were the majority of voters turned off by the entirety of Obamacare, or just the individual mandate? I ask because, I’m not entirely sure, but I suspect that a majority of people were pleased about a few specific aspects of Obamacare-mainly the pre-existing condition part and the part that lets teenagers stay on their parents healthcare plan for an extended number of years.

I think it was as much the bullying and bribing as the details of Obamacare itself. Those town hall meetings with deaf Dem politicians aghast that the “little people” would dare question the wisdom of the House. Then, of course, there was the whole “you have to pass the bill to read the bill showed just how corrupt the Dems really are.

Yep! Bet Bart Stupak is really grateful for the opportunity to vote against his supposed “conscience” for OCare! No respect for the consciences of even the few Dems left who had them, so no respect now for the Catholic Church. We all knew where this was heading. Too Bart Stupid didn’t.

The question is, were the majority of voters turned off by the entirety of Obamacare, or just the individual mandate?

Not to mention the deliberately duplicitous way it was passed, with Cornhusker kickbacks, Louisiana purchases, votes in the middle of the night, late on Saturday nights, and the vote on Christmas Eve morning. All of those aspects should never, ever be forgotten.

The question is, were the majority of voters turned off by the entirety of Obamacare, or just the individual mandate? I ask because, I’m not entirely sure, but I suspect that a majority of people were pleased about a few specific aspects of Obamacare-mainly the pre-existing condition part and the part that lets teenagers stay on their parents healthcare plan for an extended number of years.

theoddmanout on March 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Yes, and had there been any real dialog between the parties involved, it may have been an almost helpful piece of legislation. But let’s call a cow a cow shall we? Obamacare was never about providing better care to the American people; it was designed to be the “Crown Jewel of Socialism” to seize “control” of the health care industry. All in an illegal majoriy vote count wins all dog and pony show in congress.

We must not only get rid of Obama but Obama care as well. We cannot get rid of Obama Care without getting rid of Obama (duh).

We all know that the unemployment numbers are bogus. The real unemployment rate is between 16% and 18%. We need to help Obama keep his numbers up.

Get everyone you know who does not have a job, stay at home moms, retired folks, college students, everyone even if they don’t want a job. Send them down to the employment office so they count as part of America’s unemployed. Get Rush, Sean, Glenn, Medved, etc. to get on board.

We need to get the unemployment numbers up to 13%, Obama’s lucky number.

I am fully expecting the SC to strike this down. That way both sides can point and say “well it wasn’t us! That pesky court with its lifetime appointees did it!”

Then they can all just hum along like nothing is wrong again. I mean did you hear, we have like 3 months of solid super duper real growth or something and everything is awesome!

Gatsu on March 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I’m inclined to think you are right. Even though Barry would be sawing off his own leg, if the SC struck it down, it would actually HELP his re-election bid. That way the Dems can spin the dialog any way they want and shift attention away from how badly they screwed-up.

This is where the contraception/abortifacent mandate to religious institutions may actually rise up and bite the dems. By making that an issue now, it reminds the voters that Obamacare is just a quiescent giant, waiting to impose other mandates on citizens.

Just imagine, if you will, the Republicans passing a 2000+ page controversial bill that no one read, how long before the press was digging into it looking at every little nuance. Well, the Democrats had all the help they could muster and they still lost. The press did the job of protecting them as much as they could, but the arrogance of their leadership was what really cost them the election. After the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the Democrats had the ability to pull this thing back and rethink it. They refused and the result was the 2010 election.

Now, if the Republicans don’t get rid of this thing, they’ll pay, but they have time. The Democrats are going to lose the Senate, mostly because of the way they’ve run it. They refuse to take any tough votes, they refuse to look at any House legislation, and they’re showing the same arrogance as Pelosi and company did in 2010.

Obama is going to lose this election also, because he’s been so successful at dividing the country it will hurt him. His problem? He didn’t divide it evenly and he’s on the wrong end of it.

And then the revolution begins – in the streets, in the countryside, everywhere. Who’s side will the military take in this revolution is yet to be solidified.

rjulio on March 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Who said anything about revolution? This is about putting control back where it belongs. The Federal government is grossly large and mismanaged, and corruption is rampant. If we have to get the military involved, then it is already too late.

Vote out those who fail to uphold our rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, who fail to uphold the Constitution, and put them under the withering spotlight to show their malice, greed and failure to represent US.

I was watching parking wars with my son last night and thinking how horrible the government is, watching people take HOURS just to get a car back…then I told my son now imagine your child is dying of cancer and you have to go through that kind of government beauracracy just to get treatment. Obama care is going to be a nightmare.

B) That Obamacare was a terrific idea in Massachusetts, but because of really excellent reasons like ___________, ________________, and _______, it would be a catastrophic failure in every other state?

Yep! Bet Bart Stupak is really grateful for the opportunity to vote against his supposed “conscience” for OCare! No respect for the consciences of even the few Dems left who had them, so no respect now for the Catholic Church. We all knew where this was heading. Too Bart Stupid didn’t.

As Blake writes, Obamacare is “a sleeping giant,” and, if Republicans don’t rouse and slay it now, repeal not only will be impossible — but, from 2014 onward, the giant will wake to ravage a nation lulled into a false sense of security by the passage of time.

I doubt it. If they don’t kill it now; when all the edicts come down from Her Highness of Health Care in 2014, a lot of pols in Washington will be moving out in the following election.

The question is, were the majority of voters turned off by the entirety of Obamacare, or just the individual mandate? I ask because, I’m not entirely sure, but I suspect that a majority of people were pleased about a few specific aspects of Obamacare-mainly the pre-existing condition part and the part that lets teenagers stay on their parents healthcare plan for an extended number of years.

theoddmanout on March 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM

It’s hard to say for sure. Had the Democrats actually put the effort into getting bi-partisan support for this bill it would probably be a lot better.

Now, if the stupid Republicans believe they can just get rid of this, without an alternative, they’re crazy. In fact, if they want to take the House, Senate, and the White House, they’d be smart of they put some proposals on the table. Something tells me Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the inside the beltway elites, aren’t that smart. Newt will have to come up with it on his own.

In case Republican candidates need confirmation that Obamacare was and is a huge vulnerability for the president and Democrats…

Then you might want to REMIND THE RINOS RUNNING THE PARTY OFF THE CLIFF that their chosen candidate can’t lay a finger on the issue, because Willard Fillmoure Romneycare for all intents and purposes, authored the god(*&^%$ healthcare bill personally.

Now, if the stupid Republicans believe they can just get rid of this, without an alternative, they’re crazy.

What????

No.

GET.
RID.
OF.
IT.
F*&^%$G.
NOW!!

KILL OBAMCARE UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY – IN A FIRE – WITH ABSOLUTELY NO REPLACEMENT – and then, to finish cleaning up, toss every single bastard who signed their name on the bill into the conflagration as traitors to the Republic of the United States of America – metaphorically speaking.

Only an idiot of the worst order would think this liberty sucking monstrosity could be fixed ore replaced.

Gouge the things eyes out, slit it’s throat, and leave it in an ally to die.

If SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare, it still may be that Romneycare, not being Federal, would be allowed to stand. That would help Mittens’ contention that each State should craft their own healthcare option. If SCOTUS allows Obamacare, the issue is off the table in November because Obama can always throw it back in Mittens’ face that he followed his lead. Mittens better pray that Scotus strikes it down!

Seriously, I know a lot of you moderate Republicans really despise “social conservatives,” but do you think we could declare a truce on social issues and NOT NOMINATE THE ROMNEYCARE GUY IN AN EFFORT TO OUST THE OBAMACARE GUY!!

Serious question: Romney has been promising to issue waivers for Obamacare — though I don’t know that he actually has that authority — because he says the mandate was unconstitutional at the federal level.

But if SCOTUS comes back and declares the mandate is Constitutional after all, does Romney still try to dismantle Obamacare? Or does he say that, since it’s Constitutional, it’s the best small-government free-market solution available?

Seriously, I know a lot of you moderate Republicans really despise “social conservatives,” but do you think we could declare a truce on social issues and NOT NOMINATE THE ROMNEYCARE GUY IN AN EFFORT TO OUST THE OBAMACARE GUY!!

Is that asking too much?

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I think the guy with the reputation of a homophobic bigot is a bigger concern than the guy who championed Romneycare. Doesn’t mean I’m happy about it, but it is what it is.

Seriously, I know a lot of you moderate Republicans really despise “social conservatives,” but do you think we could declare a truce on social issues and NOT NOMINATE THE ROMNEYCARE GUY IN AN EFFORT TO OUST THE OBAMACARE GUY!!

Is that asking too much?

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I think the guy with the reputation of a homophobic bigot is a bigger concern than the guy who championed Romneycare. Doesn’t mean I’m happy about it, but it is what it is.

Anyone else missing W. these days?

Violina23 on March 9, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Homophobe is a made-up insult for people who don’t give approval of homosexuality. Again, you think we could call a truce on social issues long enough to get rid of Obamacare? Because it sounds like the social issues are more important to you.

Is it a general rule now that people who whine about “social conservatives” really just don’t want any opposition on their pet social issues? Because there sure are a lot of people whose chief objection to Santorum is not that they don’t want to get distracted by “social issues,” but that they actively believe anything less than an embrace of homosexuality makes one a bigot.

Yep! Bet Bart Stupak is really grateful for the opportunity to vote against his supposed “conscience” for OCare! No respect for the consciences of even the few Dems left who had them, so no respect now for the Catholic Church. We all knew where this was heading. Too Bart Stupid didn’t.

JAM on March 9, 2012 at 2:08 PM

The upside is that Bart Stupid lost his seat to a tea partier who had never held elective office before. Even better, this new Congressman is an M.D. Michigan got that one right in 2010.